FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY - Quo Jure Corporation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$MusicTime Deluxe: C:\Documents and Settings\Jim\M - Quo Jure ...$

ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT – DO NOT FILE into account (including the fact that Greene did not claim she was physically unable to attend the hearing), no grounds existed for a continuance. The arbitrator found that, even under medication, Greene had proved herself “able to compose and transmit cogent and appropriate letters and marshal evidence in support of her application.” January 25, ____ Order Denying Motion for Continuance, p. 3. Finally, the arbitrator observed that, under the rules of procedure, Greene could obtain the assistance of “another person” at the hearing, and that nothing in the rules required that this person be an attorney. The arbitration proceeded as scheduled. The arbitrators filed and served their Findings and Award on March 1, ____. White and Chervil & White obtained an award of $103,500. On May 5, ____, Greene petitioned to vacate the arbitration award. As grounds, she asserted that the arbitrators had unfairly refused to grant her a continuance under Code of Civil Procedure 1 § 1286.2(e). Greene did not serve the petition on White until August 12, ____. White moved to dismiss the petition to vacate, primarily on the grounds that Greene had not timely filed and served the petition within 100 days as required by § 1288. Additionally, White asserted that Greene had failed to include the required notice of the hearing date on the petition, and that Chervil & White was not a proper party to the proceeding because the law firm had dissolved several years earlier after Mr. Chervil’s death. Greene opposed the motion on the grounds that White had misinterpreted the case law and the requirement that service under § 1288 also had to occur within the 100 days. She said that California Rules of Court, Rule 1615(d) would allow her to 1 All statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated. 2
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT – DO NOT FILE move to vacate the award up to six months after the hearing on one of the grounds set forth in § 473 (mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect). Greene contended that she had inadvertently failed to serve the petition in a timely manner based on her continuing medical problems. Greene also asserted that the court had the power to excuse her from the 100-day filing deadline under California Rules of Court, Rule 209(c). The trial court dismissed the petition to vacate. In her tentative ruling granting White’s motion, the judge found that § 1288 specifically states that both filing and service of a petition to vacate must be made within the 100-day time limit, and that dismissal of a petition to vacate is appropriate if it was not timely filed. As to Greene’s argument that her medical condition prevented her from effecting timely service, the court observed that the 100-day requirement of § 1288 was more like the mandatory service-of-summons provision of § 583.210 than it was like California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b), which allows the court some discretion in granting extensions beyond its 60-day deadline. The court also noted that a party must request an extension before the time for service expires, and Greene had not done this. The court denied White’s request for fees because she had not requested them in her notice of motion, and Business and Professions Code § 6023(c) only provides for an award of fees to a prevailing party if they were incurred in obtaining confirmation, correction, or vacation of the award, but does not encompass a motion to dismiss. ISSUE Does Greene have grounds to appeal the court’s order dismissing her petition to vacate the arbitration award? 3
Page 1: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT - DO NOT FILE
Page 5 and 6: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT - DO NOT FILE

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY - Quo Jure Corporation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?